  Ok, i realize i havent been active in any of the blogging going on this week, but i have finally caught myself up and want to respond to some of the ideas you all have presented. I know Ms. Clark is trying to get us to talk about a new issue, but bare with me. I understand all sides of the different arguments that have been presented, so i commend all of you for putting your ideas out there.
I think the arguments that are clearly stuck in my head are Rob's (with the hope of rallying up support for the blond hair blue eyed heterosexual caucasian white males), Natalya's (arguing on both GM and EC) and Megan's. Maybe its because i agree with a lot of what they have said. Unlike Megan, i dont know many homosexuals, however my heart does go out to them. But I do realize that i dont have the same religious background as others that could hinder my sympathy for them.
I still am pushing that there is a definite separation between church and state. This should be remembered when arguing whether or not GM should be legalized. I know i posted a week ago, and it's so far back in the past that im sure it has been forgotten, but i said a lot of what Natalya said, just not as eloquently (she is of course an experienced debater!).
I agree completely with her arguments, particularly on the debate over abortion and EC. I know people have moral reasons for not agreeing with its usage, however mistakes happen. It isnt fair to put an innocent child in an unforgiving world. No matter what opportunities are trying to be given to make up for lower-income, hard lives, the pain inside cannot be erased. They are brought into the world unwanted, permanently branded. And i agree, it is up to each individual to make their own decision.
Being a fairly independent female, it scares me to death to know that the option may not always be open to me. Accidents happen. I know that i wouldnt want one bad decision to effect me, my unborn child, my family, and the father of the child (considering rape isnt involved). Each decision has repercussions, effecting not only one individual, but all those who surround him/her. I'll admit it now: I am pro-choice on pretty much every aspect of social controversy. I dont think it is acceptable for a group of individuals, no matter what their backgrounds or personal beliefs may be, to make decisions that effect the masses. There are always instances where people should just have the right to make their own decisions, b/c in the long run, each individual knows what is best for himself/herself.
Addressing the idea of whether or not abortion or gay marriage should be reason to sway one's vote, i think its up to the individual.Unfortunately, i will not be 18 for the coming election and thus i cant say that i can answer the question without a little cynicism, knowing that it doesnt effect me for another 4 years. But i do think that it is worth researching and looking into. I think it's important to research all of the different positions each candidate is taking, economically, their domestic policies, and foreign policies.
I dont think it would be wise to make the decision solely on one aspect of their campaigns. Basically, it's choosing the lesser evil. I dont think anyone will ever completely agree with all the prospective policies, but its choosing which one you have lesser opposition to. Well, i hope i have covered all all the topics that have been discussed over the past week. But bare with me if i havent, a lot of ground was covered between now and the last time i posted! Kailie 
